occupiers liability lawful visitors
- Created by: natalia ailoaie
- Created on: 16-02-23 11:25
View mindmap
- occupiers liability- the legal responsibility of an occupier for damage caused by the state of the premises
- 1. d must be an occupier
- wheat v lacon- where a person has a sufficient degree of control over premises they will be an occupier
- 2.d must be an occupier of 'premises'
- s1(3)(a) 1957- land and buildings, as well as a fixed or movable structure, including any vessels, vehicles or aircrafts
- liability is based on occupancy duties- Ferguson v welsh - later on confirmed in Fairchild v glenhaven
- s1(3)(a) 1957- land and buildings, as well as a fixed or movable structure, including any vessels, vehicles or aircrafts
- 3.lawful visitor or trespasser?
- tresspasser is someone that exceeded their permission or someone with no permission
- 4.when is duty owed? an occupier of premises owes the same duty, the common duty of care, to all his visitors
- 5.what is the duty owed? s2(2) says that occupiers have a duty towards taking care as its reasonable to make the visitors reasonably safe.
- Laverton v kiapasha takeaway supreme- only have to make the premises reasonably safe
- dean and chapter of Rochester cathedral v debell- tripping and slipping are everyday occurrences, no occupier can possibly ensure that all areas are kept in perfect condition.
- s2(3)(a)- an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults, the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age.
- glasgow corporation v Taylor- allurements should be fenced away or have warning signs around them
- Phipps v rochester corporation- d is entitled to assume that parents will not let young children go to clearly unsafe places unaccompanied
- s2(3)(b)- professionals should understand the risks of their work
- roles v Nathan- workmen should be aware of the risks
- identified risks only- Clare v Perry
- DEFENCES UNDER OLA 57
- S2(1)- liability may be excluded via signs and tickets in a contract
- s65 consumer rights act 2015- buusiness cannot exclude liability under OLA 57 for p.i or death
- warnings- s2(4)(a)- warning that in all circumstances, would enable visitors to be reasonably safe- rae v mars
- Darby v national trust
- s14- business premises
- s2(1)- death/personal injury
- s2(2)- property loss/damage
- s3(1) ola 57-cotractual entrants
- work done by independent contractors- s2(4)(b)
- halsedine v daw- reasonable to give the work to an independent contractor
- bottomless v todmorden cricket club- d made sure the contractor hired is competent to carry out the task
- woodward v mayor of Hastings- occupier must take reasonable steps to check the work has been done properly
- thomson v cremin and others
- 1. d must be an occupier
Comments
No comments have yet been made